Question: TMA 06 How might a liberal philosopher argue for the view that it was right to grant an exemption in this case? How might a liberal philosopher argue against this view? Which side has the stronger argument?

Answer: The Goldman versus Weinberger case prompts the consideration of many differing theories and concepts that can be presented by liberal philosophers in an attempt to rationalise both sides of the debate. The complexity of the case is an excellent example of how institutional policy can conflict with religious freedoms, and how reaching a satisfactory conclusion is fraught with dichotomies and paradoxes. In applying blind difference liberalism to the case philosophers appear to find themselves supporting both sides of the debate. On one hand it can be argued that it is liberal to allow the free practice of religion, while on the other hand the view can be taken that it is more liberal to make everyone conform to an accepted standard, and therefore by default everyone receives equal treatment. It appears there is no simple answer to these types of situation, and philosophical debate appears ...(short extract)

To download the full answer, please Sign in or Register then make a payment or submit 3 of your essays.